Discussion in 'Apple iPad' started by LPH, Jan 26, 2012.
View the Post on the Blog
Are these copies of Wikipedia entries morally wrong or technically illegal under Wikipedia's use agreement?
Certain derivatives of work may have moral rights and the original author may seek redress. However, you probably meant moral in a different sense - and the creative common license allows commercial use so many would not question inclusion. Personally, i prefer original work but most chemistry texts simply follow Linus Pauling 's General Chemistry textbook; Very little has deviated from his sequencing.
And here, all this time, I thought teachers were creative scientists as they claim through their unions for higher salaries.
It makes sense that chem textbooks follow Pauling's General Chem textbook. He was a noted chemist, so they copied the "expert."
Still, following the pattern established by another person raises the issue of taking such license without at least not acknowledging that source whether of inspiration or of content. Do you find such acknowledgments in chem texts you've reviewed or used? And how do chem teachers tell, as in footnotes and oral sidebars, their students of the source for the pattern of their reading and lessons?